Kyle Lahnakoski

Just One More Layer of Indirection
(Trying to achieve stable orbit with sufficient architecture)

Archive for the ‘Updates’ Category

3D TV is NOT Bad For You

Thursday, February 11th, 2010

Some guy named Mark Pesce wants to prevent me from seeing Avatar in my home, in 3D. He claims heavy use of 3D monitors will result in “binocular dysphoria”, and television manufactures should perform health and safety testing.

Well, I say “Bah! Give me Avatar, and forget the health testing!”.

Using the Wikipedia article on depth perception, he claims we humans use 9 different depth perception cues we use to determine depth. Upon reading the Wikipedia I found only two that are relevant to 3D screens and monitors. They are called “Accommodation” and “Motion Parallax”.

Accommodation is where you can feel the depth at which you focus at, and you can use that to determine depth. I believe humans are not really sensitive to this feedback, and only able to use it when items are really close to the eye. For example, have you looked at a repeating pattern, such as a screen, or wall paper, or fence rails, and seen it closer, or farther, then it really was? Accommodation did not help you.

What did help you determine proper depth was motion parallax. This is mentioned in the Wikipedia article, but not emphasized as I would like. I believe we humans are very sensitive to motion parallax. Combined with the fact we are fidgety creatures, we can see depth with only one lens because that lens is always getting a new perspective. When we watch 3D screens we do not get motion parallax feedback, and the association between inner ear and motion parallax (or lack of it) must be ignored by the brain.

But I believe the human mind is much more powerful than Mr Pesce gives it credit for. I may concede that old people may not be able to transition between real-life 3D and projected 3D, but I have no doubt younger minds will be able to switch, even if this switch will have to be conscious.

In summary: I want to watch Avatar in 3D.

Death of LtU

Wednesday, March 25th, 2009

I will explain this pattern in a moment, but first I will say I have only seen this pattern a couple of times before. This pattern indicates imminent death for the newsgroup, mail list, or community website. I am posting this to test my prediction: LtU’s death is certain.

History

Highly technical newsgroups, mail lists, and web communities start off with a (small) excited family of founders interested in a specific domain. In the case of LtU, it is the domain of programming language theory. This family explores the defined domain, sharing technical articles, participating in interesting discussions, and combining the newly discovered ideas in ways new to them. Along the way they teach themselves and maybe some others (experts) along the way. But over time, the combined archives accumulate close to all the relevant papers, and all that needs to be said on that domain. The founders and experts start to have a difficult time finding ideas that simulate their imagination like they experienced in the past. Discussion amoung the founders and experts stagnate.

Meanwhile, the community collects many members. Most are interested in the topic, but not to the extent the founders and experts are. Some see the community an opportunity to learn more (newbies), and others see it as peripheral to what interests them more (trolls), and others just listen to the interesting things being posted (lurkers). In any case, this larger community will contribute questions and ideas that are mostly off-topic. So long as the discussion between the founders and experts produces enough new material, and the relative number of newbies and trolls is small, the community stays vibrant. Unfortunately, the growth of the off-topic community, combined with the increasing difficulty of the founders and experts to produce stimulating content eventually tips the balance from mostly on-topic to mostly off-topic.

The founders and experts are rightly dismayed at the large amount of “low quality” community discussion. This leads to the meta discussion

http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/3219

…and then the collapse. The founders are unable to recognize the finiteness of their domain. Like a drug, they wait patiently for some new exciting concept to discuss. Meanwhile they prevent or discourage “off-topic” discussion. The lack of new content kills the community. The number of members drops off precipitously, and the community dies. The community leaves behind an archive and/or a wiki, with one or two diehard maintainers.

Problem Analysis

Community collapse is not inevitable. In my view there are three issues conspiring to destroy the community. Removing any one of these issues allows the community to stay alive.

  1. The domain is finite
  2. The number of experts is too small.
  3. The experts do not want to re-discuss issues

Expand the Domain – The finiteness of the discussion domain is the biggest reason there is a problem. The community/website must expand to include the prevalent off-topic themes. Hopefully the founders and experts have interest in these new topics, because I imagine the community will need to help to clearly define the new topics, and police them appropriately. The chances of a community expanding instead of collapsing is rare; the founders and experts need to play a larger role in moderation as the amount of discussion grows. Even if new moderators are recruited, founders and experts must realize there will be more discussion than they can digest.

I believe this was the direction took by the many (public) technical forums out there. I admit these may not have been born from academic-level community, but behind those sites is the discipline to support diverse and, admittedly, non-technical discussion.

Increase the Number of Experts – The community is in crisis because there are not enough on-topic posts. If the number of experts is increased, the number of posts should increase also. The problem with this solution is that there are not enough active experts. If there are, then they are usually found in academia publishing peer-reviewed papers, in which case they already have their own community: with journals and meetings, far superior to internet discussion.

Maintaining expertise of the members, and the quality of the discussion, has be done, and it takes the form of academic communities. The discussion is not intense because the reality is there is not many new things coming out of any one domain. For now, the best a community can do is distribute the papers of real experts. Maybe in time the major journals will start their own forums: Posting allowed only by invitation, of course.

Keep experts excited – Any one person will eventually loose interest in a fixed domain, therefore a consistent stream of new experts is required to replace the old. This means the founders and old-guard experts must stand down and pass the discussion on to a new generation of experts. This will inevitably result in many re-discussions of old topics, but the community will stay alive discussing past topics while waiting for the occasional new idea to arrive. As with all re-birth, do not be surprised if the offspring does not resemble the parent. How many founders would allow that to happen to their pet project?

I have seen successful handoffs before; the current experts do not have the time to maintain the list. I have seen the discussion change as the priorities of the new experts dominated the discussion. Problem is that the next generation of experts can not release control; and the community collapses eventually anyway.

Conclusion

I will put a line in the sand, if only to test my abilities of prognostication: LtU does not have the will or resources to expand it’s website to include a more diverse set if discussions. LtU can not try to compete with academia’s clearly superior quality discussion. LtU moderators can not stomach releasing control the hoards of off-topic trolls.

The LtU community is about to die.

Simple Lack of Oversite

Thursday, February 26th, 2009

The Clinton administration altered the Community Reinvestment Act in 1995. Despite what the GOP operatives would have you believe, it was not the cause of the housing meltdown.

The relaxing of lending regulations did not cause this problem because the relaxed regulations only affected less than 20% of the banks making loans.

If you want to blame relaxed mortgage regulations, you should blame the complete lack of regulation in the mortgage industry. But, even this lack of regulation is not the problem. If a corporation thinks giving money to the poor for overpriced houses makes good business sense, then they should be allowed to do so. The real problem was that the creditors and shareholders were not overseeing these companies appropriately.

What I find abhorrent is the use of public money to bailout these same lazy creditors and shareholders.

** If your managed investments, like 401K or mutual funds, lost money then maybe it was because they chose non-voting shares, or they voted for the same-old-board, or they did not vote at all. I suggest you start a class-action lawsuit for their lack of due diligence: What did you pay those management fees for?

Move to WordPress

Thursday, November 27th, 2008

I have finally moved to WordPress!

The thing holding me back is the time and skill required to change one of the default layouts to something that resembles the rest of my site. Well, I am mostly done:

  1. I must do a few more CSS improvements
  2. I must convert all my old stuff over to this new database
  3. I must find a way to backup the MySQL database so I do not loose it all

In other words, I have hours more work. At my current rate I should be done by 2011.

kyle@arcavia.com